Patti wrote:I would have made that correction last night, but when I looked closely at your drawing on the negative, it isn't clear that you have only drawn on the ridges, so I let my comment stand.

Patti, then please specify your point:

At what location do you think that I have not followed the ridges in the 'reversed' picture?

(Though I did not use a 'layer' - I think my purple lines follow a ridge path at exactly the same location in both pictures)

PS. If you decide permanently not to correct your statement about my lines in the 'reversed' picture... even while you now know that your statement is not correct at all... then that would become a clear example of that in your approach, afterwards you are even able to 'read' your own mistakes... as 'valid comments'.

And if you continue with this approach towards your own mistakes only, then you appear to create a 'phantasy-world of assumptions' where your can put any element 'upside down' at any moment in time... whenever it suits you.

(While in the real world, the same comment will only serve as a 'clear' mistake - but as a forum manager I better avoid to take any responsibility for such mistakes)

Last edited by Martijn (admin) on Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Emoticon deleted because today... became a sad day.)

However Patti, I do have an interesting alternative print for consideration....

Because as an alternative for the Disney example, I would like to invite you to take a closer look at figure 232 in the F.B.I. book (which I already mentioned earlier in this discussion).

I am looking forward to hear if you recognize the similarities with Kiwihands' example.

NOTICE:

In figure 232 we don't see any 'complete whorling ridge' either (just like in Kiwihands' example), but there is a likewise S-shaped pattern (not a 'double loop' either, because the shoulders involved are connected)... and it is classified as a 'central loop pocket'!

Again ... I am looking forward to hear your thought about that example!

(Actually, I hope that you will recognize what I just described about figure 232... because that should make you able to 'jump of the fence'... and formulate a permanent opinion about Kiwihands example as well)

In fig. 232, as Kiwi already pointed out, there can be seen at least 1 ridge (red) making a complete circuit (as a spiral).

... And??? What is your point?

Sorry Patti, I now really have to make two points that illustrate that your attempts appear to go... 'nowhere'(!):

1 - First of all, I observe that likewise 'circuits' can be seen in Kiwihands' example - see for example the picture below.

2 - And second, I should add here immediately that [u]the issue of the 'complete circuit' ONLY relates to the assessment of a 'whorl'[/u].... so I don't understand why you are now using the issue of a 'complete circuit' as an argument to use again my assessment for 'central pocket loop'.

So Patti, can you please explain why you are using this argument... or are you just... ( ) ... 'thinking out loud'???

You really should read the rules yourself before posting.

The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge making a complete circuit, which may be spiral, oval, circular, or any variant of a circle.

... I don't mind admitting that I made a mistake regarding the 2nd point that I made earlier in this discussion (see the red words above), but in the first point I had already explained that there a 'complete circuit' visible - because the 'S'-shape belongs to the category of a 'spiral' or 'circle variant'.

So, I completely mis-formulated there my second argument... instead I should have mentioned that because of the first point that I made, the aspect of the 'complete' circuit becomes simply irrelevant for both the 'plain whorl' and the 'central pocket loop', because while it is found in the definitions of both the 'plain whorl' and the 'central pocket loop'... is is also visible in Kiwihands' example!

Patti, thanks for your correction earlier in the discussion... but about 8 hours ago I had already picked-up that element in my summarizing-post:

"... And finally, regarding the issue of the 'complete circuit' mentioned in the definition of the CENTRAL POCKET LOOP, it does not require to have a 'complete circuit'... because even situations where one can speak of 'almost a complete circuit' is sufficient, because the definition on page 46 clearly describes:

"The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge which makes or tends to make a complete circuit."

And Kiwihands' example also meets the other major requirements mentioned in the definition... "

(So, that point 2 'argument' was not much more than a formulation mistake from my side, but never became a relevant in my assessment - illustrated by the fact that in my summarizing post I actually mentioned that the 'complete circuit' is also present in the definition of a 'central pocket loop')

Last edited by Martijn (admin) on Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:17 pm; edited 1 time in total

Anyway... I already described that the issue of a 'complete circuit' is actually COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT for the assessment of a 'central pocket loop'[/color]

... And of course I should have mentioned in my later comment (see above) as well that it was actually my first argument (see my former post) that made the issue of the 'complete circuit' irrelevant - because... a 'complete circuit' IS present in Kiwihands' example (manifesting as: a 'whorling ridge' + the 'S'-shape).

Ad 1) The first sub-category PLAIN WHORL is excluded because the following characteristic is not present in Kiwihands' example (quoted from the F.B.I. definition of a 'plain whorl' on page 45):

"An imaginary line drawn between the two deltas must touchor cross at least one of the recurving ridges within the pattern area."

Ad 3) The third sub-category DOUBLE LOOP is excluded because the following characteristic is not present in Kiwihands' example (quoted from the F.B.I. definition of a 'plain whorl' on page 55):

"The double loop formation consists of two seperate loop formations, with two seperate and distinct sets of shoulders, and two deltas."

Ad 4) And the fourth sub-category ACCIDENTAL WHORL is excluded because the following characteristic is not present in Kiwihands' example (quoted from the F.B.I. definition of a 'plain whorl' on page 57):

"The accidental whorl is a pattern consisting of a combination of two different types of pattern..."

And finally, regarding the issue of the 'complete circuit' mentioned in the definition of the CENTRAL POCKET LOOP, it does not require to have a 'complete circuit'... because even situations where one can speak of 'almost a complete circuit' is sufficient, because the definition on page 46 clearly describes:

"The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge which makes or tends to make a complete circuit."

And Kiwihands' example also meets the other major requirements mentioned in the definition:

"The circuit may a spiral, oval, circular, or any variant of a circle."

Because an "S"-shape center can easily be described as one of those variants - because in this case it does not meet the requirements for a 'double loop'.

"An imaginary line drawn between the two deltas must not touch or cross any recurving ridges within the pattern area."

NOTICE: The 'recurving ridges' are here can only referring to the 'whorling ridges'... and not the 'looping ridges' that flow out of the pattern - because nearly EVERY peacock has such 'looping ridges' that flow out of the pattern!!!

CONCLUSION: It must be the whorl-variant: 'central pocket loop'!

Hi Martijn,

your above argument makes total sense to me - thank you for clearing this up! I get it now.

I'm sure my friend will be very pleased with the verdict of the peacock, too - what with his job he'll need all the luck and protection from accidents he can get.

I now realise where I made mistakes in examining this print - for one thing I didn't know the S-shape could be counted as a variant of a circle. Also, my version of the FBI book must be a different edition different from yours, and in its definition the "tends to" is missing. Instead it just says "The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge making a complete circuit, which may be spiral, oval, circular, or any variant of a circle." I assume my edition is older than yours since I downloaded it for free from Project Gutenberg, and I'll amend the definition.

my version of the FBI book must be a different edition different from yours, and in its definition the "tends to" is missing. Instead it just says "The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge making a complete circuit, which may be spiral, oval, circular, or any variant of a circle." I assume my edition is older than yours since I downloaded it for free from Project Gutenberg, and I'll amend the definition.

well spotted kiwihands! I've been using the same version as you http://www.dermatoglyphics.com/sof/

The Project Gutenberg version says "Release Date: August 10, 2006"so this is the more modern version, which has the definition"The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge making a complete circuit, which may be spiral, oval, circular, or any variant of a circle."(omitting or tends to make)

I didn't know an S shape can be described as a variant of a circle ...can it?

Lynn wrote:The Project Gutenberg version says "Release Date: August 10, 2006"so this is the more modern version, which has the definition"The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge making a complete circuit, which may be spiral, oval, circular, or any variant of a circle."(omitting or tends to make)

I didn't know an S shape can be described as a variant of a circle ...can it?

Lynn, regarding the S-shape... I can specify that a little bit more:

Don't you think that a "S"-shape (which typically manifests in the 'grooves') can be recognized as a 'spiral'-variant? - See for example the illustration of a 'whorl' below.

(Because if you imagine two "S-shapes" that are entwingled, and you start a visualization where the central points 'curl' inside eachother... the result will be a 'spiral')

Hello everybody,Has nobody heard about the little or small double loop as a fingerprint? It is a variant of the double loop. The little double loop has the same qualities as the normal double loop, dependent on which finger.

Magda van Dijk-Rijneke wrote:Hello everybody,Has nobody heard about the little or small double loop as a fingerprint? It is a variant of the double loop. The little double loop has the same qualities as the normal double loop, dependent on which finger.

Hi Magda!Are you referring to the very core of the whorl pattern where sometimes it's a tiny spiral, sometimes concentric circles and sometimes a double loop, but we are only able to see this pattern clearly in the very center?

I have whorl fingerprints and the extreme central portion of the different prints vary.

Magda van Dijk-Rijneke wrote:Hi Patty,Yes, it is a little double loop in the center of a normal loop.

A central pocket loop or peacock's eye is what these have been called. I think it's important that the central pattern be contained. The guidelines state that when you draw a line from one triradius to the other there should be a complete pattern above this line that is contained. I've seen this rule stated various ways. With concentric circles it's easier to find a contained circle or pattern, but with the double loop, the ridges unwind and tend to cross this drawn line between the triradii. Then the rules become more complex (as you can see from the earlier part of this discussion).

I know what you mean but still it is not a central pocket loop or peacock's eye? I know it is very difficult. But when you follow the ridge in the middle than you get a very small double loop in a normal loop. Sometimes the rules are too stricted, you can make it so difficult as you want. But never mind, you can see what you want. When it is to difficult explain it as an usual loop.Love Magda

By the way, have you noticed that Lynn, Patti & me are usually discussing the details of fingerprints with the F.B.I. book 'The Science of Fingerprints'?

(I think Patti's comments about the various types of the whorl, double loop, central pocket loop, etc.... follow what is described in that book; today this book is really THE authority in the international field of the study of fingerprints)

An online version of the full book is available here:http://www.dermatoglyphics.com/sof/

Magda van Dijk-Rijneke wrote:I know what you mean but still it is not a central pocket loop or peacock's eye? I know it is very difficult. But when you follow the ridge in the middle than you get a very small double loop in a normal loop. Sometimes the rules are too stricted, you can make it so difficult as you want. But never mind, you can see what you want. When it is to difficult explain it as an usual loop.Love Magda

Hi Magda,I agree with you in the respect that rules can be limiting.

The FBI rules are good for classifying the patterns, but they narrow them down into too few of groups for use in palmistry. Personally, I think the essence of a person with a big double loop filling the fingertip pad is very different from someone with a smaller double loop inside a 'pocket'.

Purkinje, who first identified and categorized the various fingerprints divided them into 9 categories which the FBI has narrowed down to arches, loops and whorls with subcategories plus the odd prints that don't fit in just one category. This is basically related to triradii. Arches with 0, loops with 1 and whorls with 2 or more.

Purkinje also in the early 1800's stated that he thought every subjective state related to an objective state. The FBI is primarily concerned about accurate and repeatable identification and not a person's objective and subjective states of being.

Thank you Patti and Martijn fore your explanation, this is interesting! I have downloaded that famous book and now I going to study it. But now..., what is in your oppinion the qualities of character of that accidental loop .